Normally, I am quite happy that I don't have Times Select. But thanks to riley370's link, I didn't need it here. (Of course, in my other guise as an IP attorney, I do wonder about the legality of this).

But I marvel at how she writes. It is amazing that she can get so many liberal misrepresentations in one short piece. Of course, she uses the same ones over and over again, but...

I am sure that someone has done it already, but I think that a generic MoDo piece would be extremely interesting to read or write.

Good request. And technically, I infringed her (or the Times') copyright by reading it from the link. (though, the copyright violation may be excused under Fair Use). But I, for one, should know (and do) better.

On a technical (legal) level, loading the article into my browser (or even just the memory of my computer) is the creation of a "copy" - i.e. reproduction under 17 USC 106.

Posting a copy on your own web site is obviously reproduction, and posting a URL to a site having such, knowing that it is an illegal copy, is contributory infringement. And that contributory infringement may extend to Ann if she condoned it, which she obviously didn't, given the deletion of the offending post.

Not at all. Nor am I sad that Krugman is also locked away behind Times-Delete.

Life is too short to waste it on reading such idiocy.

Really now, a semi-talented coder could write an MoDo auto-generator that could produce articles indistinguishable from the real thing. Snark, misinformation, and paranoia are all the ingredients you'd need, plus access to an RSS feed in order to keep the subject somewhat timely.

The thing about Dowd's work ais that I don't even have to get to the part about copyright infringement. The quote Ann used as her post headline was enough to recreate the entire thing in my mind.

(And by the way, I take the whole copyright issue very seriously indeed. Which, I sometimes think, is unfortunate: if I had all the money back that we've spent on music CDs and legal downloads over the year, my son's college fund would be significantly healthier. What price integrity!)

The legal problem with the URL from the deleted comment is that it referenced an infringing copy of MoDo's column. Any newspaper that posts her column is highly likely to be doing it legally (i.e. under license). A URL to her column openly available at another paper is highly likely to be just fine.

When the NYT (or whoever) syndicates her column to other newspapers, they are granted a copyright license. That license traditionally extended to printing her column in their papers, but more recently, some at least include posting it on their web sites. And a license granted to post on their website implicitly licenses anyone viewing it to make the copies required to view it, and, most likely, also to print it.

But this gets to the absurdity of Times Select, because much of the content protected by Times Select will ultimately make it legally into the unprotected World Wide Web through syndication.

Maybe what you are paying for when you subscribe is getting columns, like MoDo's, a little faster, and some content that is otherwise unavailable.